In some respects, journalists enjoy a privileged position. A substantial proportion of their viewers/listeners/readers choose to accept what journalsist present as being accurate, fair and true. Many journalists respect this privilege and act responsibly. However some journalists weave their stories with threads of truth, exaggerations, misrepresentations and personal opinions. The product can become a damaging fabrication and much of the time they get away with it.
There is always the option of taking legal action against a journalist and politicians can always take this course of action if they believe they have been wrongfully treated. Resulting actions are likely to be tedious and expensive. The action against Andrew Bolt and his employer is one example and at the end of the day, the employer may pick up the tab while the journalist may choose to continue operating with the same standards of probity. "Mr Bolt's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist."
After all this things appear to have gone back to business as usual.
If he bellieves he had been wronged, Tony Abbott has the option of pursuing a remedy at law after glaring down Mark Riley didn't work. Perhaps Tony's bundy crunching, jack booted followers might want to fund such an action.
